On 14 jul 2006, at 06.05, Jason Schiller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
IMHO moving the boundary to a /56 is completely missing the boat on
what
the actual problem is. We discovered that classful addresses were a
mistake and moved to variable length subnet masks. Let's not
repeat this
mistake by not having variable length subnet masks in ipv6.
Agreed!
That rounds up to 16 subnets and doubles up to 32 subnets. That would
require 5 bits for subnetting or a /59
I'm not trying to suggest that this is the right number, but rather
that
we should take this sort of approach.
I actually think that is a policy to be determined by the RIRs...
- kurtis -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
